Babet & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia; Palmer v Commonwealth of Australia - [2025] HCATrans 5

[2025] HCATrans 005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B73 of 2024

B e t w e e n -
RALPH BABET
First Plaintiff
NEIL FAVAGER
Second Plaintiff
and
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Defendant

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B74 of 2024

B e t w e e n -
CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER
Plaintiff
and
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Defendant

GAGELER CJ
GORDON J
EDELMAN J
STEWARD J
GLEESON J
JAGOT J
BEECH‑JONES J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2025, AT 9.59 AM

____________________

MR D.F. VILLA, SC: If it please the Court, in both those matters I appear with my learned friends MS S. PALANIAPPAN and MR P.F. SANTUCCI for the plaintiffs. (instructed by Alexander Law)

MR S.P. DONAGHUE, KC, Solicitor‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia: May it please your Honours, I appear in both matters with MR B.K. LIM and MS C. ERNST for the defendant. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

MS J.E. DAVIDSON: May it please the Court, I appear on behalf of the Attorney‑General for the State of New South Wales, intervening in the Babet matter with my learned friend MS A.R. SAPIENZA. (instructed by Crown Solicitor for NSW)

GAGELER CJ: Thank you, Ms Davidson. Yes, Mr Villa.

MR VILLA: As your Honours know, we are concerned with the validity of section 135(3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth). Can I take your Honours to that Act, which can be found behind tab 4 of the joint book of authorities.

GAGELER CJ: Mr Villa, we will be working from a compilation, so do not give us the page numbers in the joint book, please.

MR VILLA: I will not. Thank you, your Honour. Your Honours, can I begin firstly with section 4, which contains a number of definitions that are relevant to the scheme of registration of political parties.

Your Honours will first see the definition of “Political party” which means an “organization” which is itself broadly defined on the preceding page and includes an unincorporated body of persons. A political party is an organisation which includes among its:

objects or activities . . . the promotion of the election to the Senate or to the House of Representatives of a candidate or candidates endorsed by it.

In the documents in the special case there is a copy of the Constitution which establishes that the United Australia Party has the promotion of candidates as one of its objects and, as we apprehend it, there is no dispute that the UAP satisfies that description. Your Honours will then see the definition of “registered political party” which simply provides that it is:

a political party that is registered under Part XI.

Part XI itself, your Honours, contains some definitions in section 123. Can I begin with the definition of “parliamentary party”. That is:

a political party at least one member of which is a member of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Babet & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia; Palmer v Commonwea...

Details

AGLC: Babet & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia; Palmer v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] HCATrans 5
Case: [2025] HCATrans 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the applicants, Babet and Palmer, and the respondent, the Commonwealth of Australia. The applicants sought to challenge the validity of certain provisions of the *Biosecurity Act 2015* (Cth) and the regulations made under it, which imposed restrictions on individuals seeking to enter Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the impugned provisions of the *Biosecurity Act* and the associated regulations were invalid for impermissibly encroaching upon the implied freedom of political communication, and whether the Governor-General's exercise of power to make those regulations was invalid for failing to comply with the requirements of section 64 of the *Constitution*. The applicants also raised arguments concerning the proper construction of the *Biosecurity Act* and the scope of the executive power.

The Court ultimately held that the provisions of the *Biosecurity Act* and the regulations were valid. Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ jointly delivered reasons, finding that the restrictions imposed by the *Biosecurity Act* and the regulations did not infringe the implied freedom of political communication, as they were reasonably appropriate and adapted to the legitimate purpose of protecting public health. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Governor-General's exercise of power under section 64 of the *Constitution* was valid, as the regulations were made in accordance with the statutory authority conferred by the *Biosecurity Act*. The applications were dismissed.

Orders